What is considered is also NOT what is necessarily actually true nor necessarily able to be true. For example, any thing can be considered stationary, but is there any thing that is actually ABLE TO BE stationary?

You say, any thing can be considered stationary and be that against which time is computed, or measure if in the presence of the measurement.
1. What can 'stationary' actually be measured against in real and true Life? (Of course one thing can be said, or considered, to be "stationary" against another thing, but that is NOT what I am asking here).

But there is NO test for being stationary, yet. Well, that is, not until we can measure 'stationary' against some thing that is ACTUALLY stationary. Only when the only thing that IS ACTUALLY stationary is discovered by, or revealed to, human beings, then human beings can look at it and test how much actual velocity there is relative to that. Until then the use of the word 'stationary' relative to some other thing is only an imaginary scenario.

That question may be irrelevant to you, for reasons that you may or may not yet be consciously aware of, but that question is certainly NOT irrelevant to the overall picture. You may choose to only look at, and see, some things, but others are more interested in looking at, and seeing, the whole picture and understanding how ALL things fit perfectly together.

4. How do human beings supposedly accurately measure that which is considered stationary, but in real is NOT stationary, against that thing called 'time' but which we are awaiting a definition for, and of which is some how computed?

Noax wrote:Ah. An attempt at stating a contradiction, coupled with the refutation you seek no less. The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me.

Being "stationary" in or to a thing, which itself is NOT stationary at all, does NOT sound pretty stationary, to Me.

I left of the part where there should be no acceleration, something that is detectable. An accelerating object is stationary for no more than a moment in any particular inertial frame, but remains stationary in its own accelerated frame.

But the truth is it does NOT remain stationary at all.

If some human beings want to conceptualize a stationary frame, then that is fine. But that does NOT mean that there is in fact an actual stationary position nor frame.

The first definition I found for 'stationary', which was, not moving or not intended to be moved, sounds very contradictory to 'traveler', of which the first definition I found for 'traveler', was, a person or thing that travels, with the first definition of 'travel' I found, being, make a journey, typically of some length. The word travel and traveler usually referring to moving, which is in stark contradiction of not moving or not intended to be moved.

You're not looking up a physics definition there.

What is the definition of 'stationary' that those people who are labelled as "physics" use?

Good to see you know how to look up a word though when you think it suits your purposes.

I look up a word whenever I want to. Contrary to what you BELIEVE, or are suggesting, I do NOT look up a word when I think it suits My purposes.

And, EVERY time I look up a word, the definition given, supports Me further anyway.

Looking at and using, so called, "everyday human language" and its definitions is all I need anyway. I do NOT need to use CHANGED definitions, like specific vocations use, in order to show and see what they BELIEVE is true and correct. Any person can CHANGE the definitions of words, so that things will then fit in with what they already BELIEVE is true. I much prefer to just look at see things how they really are instead.

If there is NO absolute (not relative to ANY THING) way to test for being stationary, then that would also include a traveler sitting in a ship's seat, would it not?

Correct. He is not stationary in any absolute sense any more than is the Earth guy.

Thank you.

Would this suggest that when some human beings talk about what happens with, or compared to, stationary things, then really they are NOT actually seeing nor talking about what IS but rather they are seeing and talking about some imagined conceptualized thing or situation?

But there is NO test for being stationary, yet. Well, that is, not until we can measure 'stationary' against some thing that is ACTUALLY stationary.

That ACTUALLY is the absolute space concept.
In absolute space, Earth location can be given using just coordinates, without being relative to anything. I defy you to give our location without referencing some object, unless the actual coordinates of that object can first be given. The implied coordinates are sadly always 0,0,0 meaning the Earth (which isn't even holding still) is always the assumed center of the universe in complete disregard for the principle of mediocrity.

Noax wrote:

2. What is 'time'?

Irrelevant philosophical question.

That question may be irrelevant to you,

It is not irrelevant to me, but it is irrelevant to the fact that the one twin will age 140 days and the other 8.6 years. I don't care to discuss it with someone as biased as you. If you notice, I've been discussing it with others.

If some human beings want to conceptualize a stationary frame, then that is fine. But that does NOT mean that there is in fact an actual stationary position nor frame.

So why do you keep doing it? That would be this actually stationary you keep insisting on.

What is the definition of 'stationary' that those people who are labelled as "physics" use?

Having zero velocity relative to some reference. Common language carries an implied reference, where the physics definition makes the reference explicit in cases where it might be ambiguous.

I do NOT look up a word when I think it suits My purposes.

I noticed this. When it suited your purposes, you did not look up the word 'troll', but instead asked us. The only purpose where that would be the choice to make is that of a troll.

Would this suggest that when some human beings talk about what happens with, or compared to, stationary things, then really they are NOT actually seeing nor talking about what IS but rather they are seeing and talking about some imagined conceptualized thing or situation?

Not imagined. Stationary in whatever frame is referenced or implied.

Last edited by Noax on Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Looking at and using, so called, "everyday human language" and its definitions is all I need anyway. I do NOT need to use CHANGED definitions, like specific vocations use, in order to show and see what they BELIEVE is true and correct. Any person can CHANGE the definitions of words, so that things will then fit in with what they already BELIEVE is true. I much prefer to just look at see things how they really are instead.

And therein lies the problem. Words do not have 'unchanged' definitions. By insisting that everyone agrees with a definition that you have chosen, because it fits with what you already believe, you ken, have done exactly what you accuse others of. It's called projection, which in this context has nothing to do with the everyday meaning of shining pictures onto a screen.
Events at relativistic speeds, in different gravitational fields and at the quantum level are very different to everyday experience. The universe beyond your everyday experience is going to do what it does, regardless of what you think your private language tells it to.

If some human beings want to conceptualize a stationary frame, then that is fine. But that does NOT mean that there is in fact an actual stationary position nor frame.

derp!

That's the WHOLE POINT of the theory -- that there is no ACTUAL "at rest" frame. And no one here said that there was -- quite the opposite. If there were such a frame, relativity theory would be wrong.

ken wrote:
If some thing [ a theory or hypothesis ] IS verified through scientific methods
and thus there is NO more potential verification nor potential falsification

You people here seem to want to insist that the theory of special relativity HAS ALREADY been verified
as being true and correct but also seem to want to be insisting that it still has potential for falsification

There is never a point at which a theory cannot be subject to potential falsification regardless of how much evidence for it there is
And although I previously stated that science deals in verification that is actually wrong since it only deals in disproof or falsification

ken wrote:
Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics
If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite

No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that is not conditional on anything else
I just want to see what you are going to offer because until you show it I really have no idea what you have

And, until you explain where you think or believe they are separated, then i really have no idea why you would even think they are separate. NO thing is separate in the Universe. Only human beings look at and see separation. Human beings distort what is real and true when they do this, thus the reason WHY human beings are still trying to figure things out.

The last several posts you've make today contain no content. I saw no comments or questions that appeared genuinely interested in discourse. The Bible thing maybe, presented as an example of verifying something through a book. True that, but it isn't presented as science. Ditto for an astrology book.

Noax wrote:His post asked if we would accept his TOE if he produced it.

That is EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID.
Your ability to read actual words written down and twist them into what you imagined is being said is a result of the actual BELIEFS that you already have and hold onto, and from making up assumptions, which are based on past experiences.

I believe this is the exact quote, page 52 I think.

Instead of just BELIEVING that this is the exact quote, WHY did you just not copy and write the exact quote down, exactly as it was written?

And, instead of just THINKING what page it was from, WHY did you just not get the exact quote from the actual page that it was on?

ken wrote:Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?

My summary of it hardly seems to be "EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID". OK, you asked about our opinion of you having such a theory, and not how we would react if it was actually produced, and the reaction I suggested was presuming it passed falsification tests.

But I NEVER, also, asked about your opinion of Me having such a theory here.

Without the tests, it would be a Theory of Nothing, despite any title you might care to slap at the top of it.

Without the tests, was the theory of special relativity, a theory of nothing also?

Or, did the name of, and/or the 'ranking' of, the person who produced that "theory of nothing" somehow could give that "theory of nothing" a name like a "theory of relativity"? The "theory of relativity" seemed to exist without, or before, the tests, correct?

In fact I thought a "theory" exists because it may well be falsified, is this right or wrong?

(I would not reject a produced tested theory just because of its author),

Seems strange, and very off the point also, to even talk about rejecting an already produced "tested" theory, just because of its author. Why did you mention such a thing?

Especially when I was just talking about how some human beings accept some things that are written or said, like theories, just because of who the author or person is, without, or BEFORE, any actual tests have even been performed.

all empirical evidence indicates the lack of that situation. The model where you have one has been falsified in many ways.

HOW would you KNOW THIS, if you have NEVER heard nor read what I HAVE, yet?

In fact you even suggest that I do NOT even have one, so to also talk about the model where I have one, seems rather contradictory. Or, are you just so fixated on your OWN beliefs and assumptions, that even if I did have a theory of everything you are still under the illusion that what ever it was it has already been falsified, AND also "in many ways", just to make sure that what you already BELIEVE is the truth is even "more real", well to you anyway?

This is just more evidence of how human beings tell, them selves, what (the story) IS, and what will be. The human brain has this ability to ONLY see what it wants to see. When BELIEFS exist there is no stopping what that one will see, even no matter how distorted the view has become.

Noax wrote:That is not a claim that it exists, and of course we all know it doesn't.

Again, HOW do you KNOW that a theory of everything does NOT already exist?

And you accuse me of twisting.

Yes I do.

But what has that got to do with any thing here? I did NOT accuse you of twisting any thing here.

I just asked you a question. If you do not want to answer it, then that is fine, but WHY the reminder of what I accuse you of doing some times? Are you trying to make a suggestion that I am also twisting some thing here? If so, then what is it, AND, HOW did you jump to that conclusion from Me just asking you a very simple straight forward question, which, by the way, was just asked in order for clarification only?

I meant all of us reading this thread, yourself included. Your language skills are weak indeed if you really needed to ask this.

In case you have not yet caught on, I do NOT like to assume any thing.

I have already shown how making assumptions has led you completely astray. And, for more evidence of this, you have just done it again. You have just said that I already know that a 'theory of everything' does not exist yet the truth is I already do know that a 'theory of everything' already does exist. But, unfortunately, for some people they are NOT yet able to explain things clearly, so that they can be easily understood. This is because their language skills are very weak indeed. For these people they are usually not even given a chance to be heard and listened to. In fact it is believed by some people, that some of these people with weak language skills do not even deserve to be heard and listened to. A very sad blight on human beings, themselves, because it is these ones with very weak language skills who may have the very most important things in Life to say and express. Yet this may NEVER be known nor understood, by some.

As you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do so

Yes, I believe this elevates it to a claim, not of existence of the theory, but of the ease of producing one.
Given that ease, it seems reasonable now to request this easily produced thing, which of course would utterly cement in how wrong the rest of us have been all this time about our assessments.

Are you under some sort of illusion that I have said that you, and others, are wrong in your assessments?

If this is the case, then to make it clear the more I have been questioning you, and other's, assessments, then the more what you, and others, are saying and believe is true, then the more it appears more feasible to Me. However, because a lot of My questions are getting ignored or just dismissed, then you are NOT able to show Me more.

By the way if your, or other's, assessments are right or wrong really does not have much bearing at all on My theory of everything.

All we know for certain is that if an interpretation or explanation fails to include time dilation, it is wrong.

Okay.

]Well at least you, and some others, KNOW for certain some things. Does "we know for certain" mean that what we know for certain is absolutely true, right, and correct?

Well, if you want to be even more specific, what people who have bothered to look at the experimental data know, is that the clocks were reported to read times that were in line with what relativity predicts.

Did the person who produced the theory of relativity predict that clocks would read different times depending on which way they traveled?

Did the person who produced the theory of relativity predict that some clocks would actually "tick faster" (for lack of better wording) the faster that clock went, relative to direction of travel?

Also, what was the actual prediction in the actual words of the actual person who made the prediction?

This of course will have a HUGE bearing on what you are talking about here.

If you break the habit of a lifetime, and do some research, you too can read the papers to that effect.

I have read some of the papers. I have also seen what is proposed as "experimental data" AND I have also seen what has been assumed to have happened from that "experimental data". I have also read and seen what has been proposed here, in this thread, which just about matches what has been proposed from "experimental data". But if you are under some sort of illusion that I HAVE TO accept what has been proposed, just because it has been written down in a book, then you are under an illusion.

But just because you, and others, believe and say "all physical process run slow" that does NOT mean that it is true, right, and correct. Especially since that belief is based solely on a couple of examples of when it was said "a clock has run slow" with speed.

I am still waiting for you to answer My question about What is a 'troll'?

You want to call Me a 'troll' but I have NO idea what you are referring to. WHY do you NOT answer My question regarding a 'troll'?

Also, your link starts off by saying that 'special relativity' is a physical theory.

If I recall correctly, it is you who said some thing like a 'theory' is not a fact but is subject to falsification? If this is correct, then 'special relativity' is still subject to falsification, but if 'special relativity' is a fact, then so be it.

Did the person who produced the theory of relativity predict that some clocks would actually "tick faster" (for lack of better wording) the faster that clock went, relative to direction of travel?

Not to my knowledge; it is implicit in the theory. What you have to bear in mind is that direction of travel is also relative. In the Hafele-Keating experiment, the two planes flew eastwards and westwards relative to Washington DC, but because the Earth is spinning anticlockwise, Washington DC itself is moving eastwards. Depending on the speed and latitude, the plane flying westward, relative to Washington DC, could actually be moving eastwards relative to, for instance, the Sun. Just not as quickly as Washington DC and even less compared to the plane flying eastwards.